Another Officer Assaulted due to ‘Appropriate’ Staffing

Police Oracle today reported the story of an officer badly injured as a result of being repeatedly struck with part of his own PPE after attending an incident outside a pub in Rotherham last year.

Michael Dolan (49) felled PC Glen Hill, whilst reportedly drunk and on steroids, after the officer attended the incident single-crewed in November. PC Hill was knocked to the ground and then, whilst lying helpless, was beaten around the head approximately 30 times by Dolan, who had taken possession of the officers canister of CS spray. The officer received a deep laceration to his head and required treatment in hospital for his injuries. Dolan subsequently admitted an offence of GBH and was sentenced to 32 months in prison – meaning he will be likely to serve well under a year and a half.

The circumstances leading up to the assault are echoed throughout many counties on a daily basis and have left officers again questioning the rationale behind single-crewing policies. 

Chief Superintendent for Rotherham, Jason Harwin, is quoted in the article as stating that staffing levels on the night of the incident were appropriate and described the incident as ‘regrettable’. He followed this comment by reminding everyone that ‘Policing does have its risks’.

In some respects I agree with this statement. Policing does have its risks but I firmly believe that it is the responsibility of Senior Managers like Chief Superintendent Harwin to stand up for the right of his officers to complete their duty without these kinds of ‘regrettable’ incidents. If he considers that the level of staffing is justified (taking into account the high chance of deployment to, or simply coming across, incidents of this type) then the consequences of that decision – in this case an officer having his head split open – must, by definition, also be considered acceptable.

They are clearly NOT! 

Those that would brush off this incident saying that the officer failed to assess the risks properly should understand that the very reason most become a Police Officer is to step toward those in need of help. Expecting us to just sit in the nick or stand nearby and watch, is not realistic. That’s not what we do… 

I know, all too well, the counter-argument to this situation. I know that those in control of the purse strings will say that there are times of night when having two officers ‘doing nothing’ together in the same car is unproductive. They will say that in these times of tight budgets and public non-confidence then twice the cars means twice the work and twice the visibility. From the safe side of the office table this may be true, but what it actually means is that officers spend the night following each-other around to jobs, burning twice the diesel because they all know that even the most routine call can turn into something tragic. Any job that involves a pub, a road, a domestic or a prisoner will need more than one officer to deal with it. The vast majority of what we now deal with on the response teams fall under one of these headings, so why not accept that the safety of officers is more important than saving a few quid in salaries only to spend a fair chunk of it on extra cars and fuel.

Budgets are a necessary evil in these times but, in my mind, the cost of an injured officer is far higher.

Vocation vs Internal Application

Today I was asked this simple question:

Has the PLC changed the reason many apply to become a Special or PCSO?

Better qualified officers and a more efficient and productive recruitment process are a must-have in the new age of Policing on the cheap a budget. We should rightly look to cut unnecessary spending and streamline expensive processes to make them fit more into the current financial picture.

What we should not do, however, is engage in a process that can ultimately damage the quality of those on the streets and the confidence of the public in those that wear the uniform.

A recent trend in many forces is to take on increased numbers of Special Constables and PCSO’s compared to Regulars. As the Army increase their Territorial compliment and cut the number of full time paid soldiers, so the balance shifts within the Policing world. Historically, the roll of Special Constable has been seen as one that leads some into full time Policing, but for most it is a vocation. This was almost exclusively the case for the PCSO too…until recently.

With virtually no Police Officer recruitment planned for external applicants until 2013 in most parts of England and Wales, the PLC qualification – to be replaced by the NPIA sanctioned Policing Knowledge Certificate (CKP) next year in the Met (and no doubt other forces) – has caused a definite change to the motivation behind applications to many forces in respect of non-Police Officer posts. I know of many people who have joined forces (particularly the Met and Surrey) as a Special or a PCSO with no intention of doing anything other than gaining access to the PLC and moving on to the internal recruitment process as soon as possible. This option is made more attractive by the fact that many of the forces who ask for the PLC qualification, also offer a discount or interest free loan to existing staff. Some would not be able to fund the course without that help…

You might ask what my issue is with this. Surely these applicants are just exploiting a loophole in order to get access to their chosen career.

That may be the case, but my concern is that for many of those (particularly the PCSO’s) who would previously joined to do the role they applied for, the carrot of internal recruitment will mean they have little or no interest in anything other than getting their hands on the qualification and moving to where they actually want to be. As a result of this, recruitment processes in those forces that use the PLC are now flooded with people who are applying for, and potentially getting, a job they don’t even want to do. Neighbourhood offices risk being crammed with PCSO’s studying for their PLC rather than looking after their neighbourhood!*

With the CKP replacing the PLC and becoming nationally recognised from April 2013, there is no guarantee that the PLC will be worth a bean by the time many get through the course. Should this happen, and potential recruits then have to take the CKP at a cost of up to £1000, many could end up stuck in their ‘gateway’ role for longer than they anticipated. What happens to their motivation then….

My view is that the role of the PCSO is becoming diluted by this situation. Specials are less so as the roles are similar in many respects. I think that the clear definition should be returned before a PCSO post becomes more of a Police apprenticeship with discounted college courses thrown in.

I believe that those forces that are recruiting internally should allow external candidates to stand alongside their internal counterparts. It is hugely short sighted to believe that it is those within the organisation who are, without reservation, the best candidates for Police Officer posts. Whilst I agree with assisted learning within any organisation, I do not agree with the culture that the PLC funding has created and that which the CKP will inherit. Those that do vocational roles such as PCSO should be those that have their heart and soul in the job…not a revision book.

—–

*Before I get thrown to the wolves…. I know that there are many exceptional Specials and PCSO’s out there who do their role exactly as was intended when it was created. I also know there are many that would never consider crossing to the dark side and joining the ‘regulars’, but there are many that would and it is these to which this post relates.

BBC Reporting priorities: Lipgloss PC given higher profile than Escaped Sex Offender!

It is almost unbelievable that the national press have felt it necessary to give priority status to the misbehaviour of PC Claire van Deurs Goss who was shown applying gloss while at the wheel of a police car in Monday’s episode of Channel 4′s 999: What’s Your Emergency. Is this story really worth such a significantly larger section of the Lancashire section of the BBC website than the story relating to dangerous offenderLee Cyrus. Cyrus has been on the run for two weeks in the county after failing to return to North Sea Camp open prison near Boston on 9 October. It is possible that he has approached two 15 year-old girls in that time, asking them to engage in sexual activities with him? In my opinion, even the long overdue improvements being made at Royal Lancashire Infirmary outrank ‘lippygate’ as far as public interest go!

I agree, Claire has messed up. Her actions and, to a lesser extent, the associated comments about lip gloss being more effective than Taser were, to some degree, inappropriate. However, as she says in the program, the arrival of a female officer can change the attitude of some so she is not altogether wrong there.

Whatever your views, this is hardly headline stuff. We all do things at work that we shouldn’t. That personal use of the photocopier, sneaking out to or back from lunch 10 minutes the wrong side of the hour, the odd driving mistake or two – you know what I mean – we ALL do it! None of them are right, and if we get caught, we accept our fate and a bit of finger wagging from the boss, but these are not headlines. If it wasn’t a Police Officer and therefore a legitimate press target this would have gone in the editors bin along with the talented cat from Accrington that can tell the difference between Mackerel and Herring!

Is it any wonder that the public perception of Police is currently distorted beyond belief?

Now if they had written about the fact she wasn’t wearing her hat – that would have been another thing entirely!

Come on BBC – sort it out!

Dangerous Driving and Police – New CPS Guidance

 

Earlier this year, PC James Holden who was charged with Dangerous Driving and sent to Crown Court in respect of a pursuit he had in February 2011 with a prolific offender, Louis Bibby, 19. Bibby was driving a stolen van, was on bail at the time, had 145 previous convictions. Holden called off the pursuit when Bibby drove through the barriers at a level crossing, but was still prosecuted. Thankfully common sense prevailed and PC Holden was found Not Guilty.

Since this case there has been a nagging doubt in the minds of many Emergency Services drivers, especially Police, about the potential implications of simply doing their job. In a world where a good officer can find themselves in Crown Court for injuring no one and damaging nothing, serious questions needed asking of the legislators.

Following significant criticism in the media and directly from the Police Federation a review of current guidelines has come to pass to address some of the glaring issues facing blue light drivers. Launching the public consultation phase of the review the director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, explained:

“The issues that arise for prosecutors when deciding to charge someone with a very serious driving offence – particularly where there has been a fatality – are inevitably difficult and sensitive.”

The draft guidance published this week advises prosecutors to use discretion in deciding whether or not a prosecution is required in the public interest if an offence is committed while responding to an emergency call, stating:

“It is very unlikely to be appropriate to proceed with a prosecution on public interest grounds if a police officer, ambulance driver or firefighter commits a driving offence while responding to an emergency call unless the driving is dangerous or indicates a high degree of culpability,”

This guidance should bring a little comfort to those who still choose to chase the bad guys. Since the Holden case it has been quite common, in my experience, for decisions about whether or not to pursue to be based on career preservation rather than the nature of the offence or the necessity to prosecute or prevent further offending by taking the offender into custody. It is reassuring to hear some common sense advice from those who make the charging decisions.

The DPP said:

“Those who work in the emergency services need to know that they can respond to an emergency call without fear of prosecution for doing their job. This is not a licence for emergency workers to act with immunity from prosecution, but it is important to appreciate that police officers, ambulance drivers and firefighters sometimes need to drive in a manner which would be not be considered acceptable by other drivers.”

The guidance also goes so far as to address so-called ‘nearest and dearest’ cases where a close relative or other loved one dies as a result of a drivers actions whilst being pursued. It suggests that a Police officer should not necessarily be held responsible for dangers created by the person who is being pursued and the consequences of the offending drivers actions.

On the subject of public interest regarding prosecution of a Police or other Emergency Service driver the report states:

“[The decision to prosecute] must of course, be balanced against the need to ensure the safety of other road users – and if there is evidence to suggest that an individual presents a continuing danger to other road users then the proper course may well be to prosecute on public interest grounds once there is sufficient evidence to do so.”

Submissions to the CPS in response to this guidance are due by 8th November 2012.

 

Courts in Community Centres – Nick Herbert’s Vision of the Future

Nick Herbert has, today, published details about his vision for the future of the criminal justice system. I have read, of course, this document with great interest.

I guess I was being a little naive when I thought to myself, ‘there couldn’t possibly be anything more for the Government to throw at Policing than Winsor’s reviews and his subsequent recommendation for HMCIC’. Describing himself as the jam in the sandwich between Ken Clarke and Teresa May (not a mental image that I would have chosen to inflict upon myself) Herbert began leading up to the main announcement with yet another defence of the current Police Review process coupled with the usual mud-slinging, directed at the Police Federation. He repeated, yet again, his suggestion that the Federation was resistant to change and, yet again, tried to discredit them by suggesting that they had actively opposed female Police Officers, traffic wardens and Community Support Officers.

How the Police Federation could have objected to the employment of female Police Officers when the first WPC was in post a year before the Federation was even created is a mystery to me…

Herbert went on to accuse the Federation of mounting a personal campaign against Tom Winsor and stated that ‘it wasn’t right to reward that campaign’ which to me sounds like Winsor’s proposed appointment as HMCIC is nothing more than a punishment for the perceived misbehaviour of the Federation, adding further weight to the comments of those that referred to the announcement as deliberately provocative.

Before moving the conversation to the future, Herbert had one final dig at events in the recent past. He states that when rioting spiralled out of control across many towns and cities the Police were capable of an effective response, but were simply too slow to do anything about it. He fails to acknowledge that, at very short notice, massive numbers of officers were moved across many counties to provide a barely-adequate defence to the ongoing mass disorder in our cities. This was not a failure of Police Forces involved, this was a direct result of having an already under-resourced Police service that will only be further hampered by the loss of another 16,000 officers over the three-year period of the reforms his Government initiated.

Now we get to the interesting part…